Free Speech Defense Is Self-Interested: Three Reasons to Embrace Opposing Viewpoints
Source: Eugene Volokh. "Journal of Free Speech Law: "Cancel Culture and the Constitution: Three Reasons Why We Should Embrace Free Speech," by Judge James Ho." February 13, 2026. reason.com
The Gist
Judge Ho argues that we should defend free speech not because we're noble, but because it helps us personally. When we let people express opposing views, we get better at arguing our own points, we avoid being wrong, and we live in a nicer world.
Conclusion
Defending free speech, even for views we detest, is fundamentally self-interested rather than altruistic and benefits us in three distinct ways
Premises
- Exposing yourself to competing viewpoints maximizes your chances of winning debates by making your own arguments stronger
- You could be wrong on any given issue, and discovering truth requires being prepared to change your mind when confronted with better arguments
- Respecting disagreement makes your life better and creates a more pleasant world to live in
- The famous maxim about defending speech you hate only makes sense if it serves self-interest, not altruism, since true altruism of that degree is unrealistic
Assumptions
- People are not naturally altruistic enough to defend opposing speech purely for others' benefit
- Truth emerges through exposure to competing ideas rather than suppression of opposing views
- Winning arguments and discovering truth are valuable goals worth pursuing
- A society with robust disagreement is preferable to one with enforced consensus